"Under God" and "In God We Trust"

King James wrote:

"You're right there but I have a better solution. No theocracy...and no "god" anywhere in politics."

 

Buck, the idea is not to silence you at all. The idea is that as an individual, you have that right. It is the state that cannot promote religion, and must remain neutral in order to fairly and equally serve Americans of all beliefs.

 

KJ,

So the definition of "liberal" would be one who wanted "under God" taken out of the Constitution? You guys have a million and one definitions of liberal and more coming eh?

I didn't say that. I didn't even mention a definition of a liberal, nor was that the subject. But, if you're not aware that most who want it taken out happen to be liberal, then you need to look around. And most liberals that I've spoken with want it taken out. I don't know if C4K is a liberal, I'm not assuming he is; in any case, his argument for taking it out don't seem to have anything to do with a political position but an interest that we be honest as a nation. Though I disagree with him, it is an honorable position. No, it doesn't make him a liberal.

I have long believed TH to be a liberal from other posts, which is why I honestly inquired, to check my own assumptions which have certainly been wrong about others in the past (e.g., I thought the same about poncho, but couldn't have been more wrong). If he is a liberal, I think it is great that he has taken the position that he has. Though I would disagree with him if he believed it should be removed, I understand that reasoning, and I respect his position either way.

But I'm not here to debate the essence of liberalism. The subject for another thread, perhaps.

 

Well put, but in all seriousness, we must be honest about such a thing if we're to be credible and consistent witnesses. Sometimes, being a credible and consistent witness is more important that getting what we want. That's why we must be honest in recognizing that the phrase "under God" is primarily patriotic, nor religious, in nature. </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed. As long as I'm alive, I will always recite the pledge with "under God" in it. No matter what the courts decide. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, that is one of the joys of real free speech. </font>[/QUOTE]One thing keeps popping up in my head.

If the words "under God" are eliminated from the pledge to placate those whom it might offend, what will happen when a child adds "under God" on their own...maybe because their parents taught it to them that way.

Will they be forced to drop it? Will they be punished by teachers because they didn't recite it "right"?

 

KJ,

You either end up with a theocracy or a system that does not please God to begin with by including everyone's "god" in the pledge. Why do Americans think it so important to force Christianity through politics?

I'm sorry but I can't make any sense out of that question. In one breath you're talking about a pledge that includes "everyone's 'god'" in it, then the next second you're accusing Americans of wanting to force Christianity down everyone's throat.

To which I would once again say, YET.

I'm not going to debate "yet" further with you. I've explained that there is NO trend in that direction. And I'm not going to debate public policy under the antiChrist. I'm debating the here and now of whether keeping these words in the Pledge is the right thing to do, not escheatology (sp?). Again, perhaps another thread.

What I can't figure out is, why do you guys even care???

To which I would ask, then, why does a Canadian care? If you care, then we certainly don't have to defend why we do. If you don't, then why are you interested in this debate?

 

that's why I said this.

 

I also wonder if they will say those freedoms are for the adults next?

 

It doesn't matter if one is liberal, conservative, moderate, or anywhere in the spectrum. "God" isn't in the Constitution.

It is a matter of fact that recitation of the pledge cannot be made mandatory. SCOTUS confirmed that around the same time that the phrase "under God" was added (though the case SCOTUS heard had nothing to do with the phrase).

I think it's part and parcel to imply that freedom of religion also includes freedom to refrain from any specific religion.

 

Nope - just like kids now don't have to say "under God." [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]How can you be so sure? Don't forget what we're dealing with here. Athiests and other anti-Christian groups are much more activist oriented than most folks.

A lawsuit to stop the mention of God in the pledge by a student wouldn't surprise me in light of other court rulings such as barring a student from praying aloud at a school lunchroom table. One seems a lot like the other.

The real goal is to eliminate all mention of God by anyone for any reason in the public venue, period. And activists allready take aim on the school systems. They won't stop just because they get "one" thing they want.

I'm sure you're familiar with the inch-mile thing.

 

You're right ftr...the meaning of liberalism is for another thread. I just asked that because of what you said to Terry. No big deal.

carpro...I didn't advocate taking God out of politics. I have been saying similar things to C4K so I wonder why you chose to jump at what I said but not at what he said.

Here is what I said AGAIN: "You're right there but I have a better solution. No theocracy...and no "god" anywhere in politics. You either end up with a theocracy or a system that does not please God to begin with by including everyone's "god" in the pledge. Why do Americans think it so important to force Christianity through politics? (and that is what they do, whether you see it or not)"

You can't "take" God out of politics. What I'm saying is you can't have "god(s)" in politics and you can't make everyone worship OUR God through legislaton. Therefore, no theocracy and no "gods". Let people worship the true God or their many gods however they see fit. God did not say for us to make them worship Him through political legislation. I realize my opinion is not popular but I really don't care.

 

Cause I don't like you as much as C4K.

At least that's what I used to tell my kids when they complained about favoritism. Subject for another thread, perhaps?

 

Boy, you certainly have the capacity to be real uppity when you talk to me. I could do it just as well. I made my question quite clear...not my fault you can't understand it.

Your first comment...simple. The conservatives want everyone to bow to them. They want to legislate Christianity. Others use their own "god" in the pledge. Niether pleases the true God. 'nuff said...

Second comment...I know why you won't debate YET with me.

Third comment...I care about the fact that conservatives want to legislate Christianity. I don't care that people want the "under God" taken out of the pledge. I'm not a weanie. If I were American I would not cry and moan because the bad guys want to take "God" out of the pledge. And who are you pledging allegiance to anyways? The flag? The republic? God? Which God? It's all ridiculous. You want to say a pledge? Fine. If someone takes "God" out...big deal. Say it anyways...and the ones who don't want to, won't. Simple enough solution.

 

Cause I don't like you as much as C4K.

At least that's what I used to tell my kids when they complained about favoritism. Subject for another thread, perhaps? </font>[/QUOTE]That or you were being hypocritical? You don't like me. I don't like you either dude.

BTW...your comment took this thread away from its civilized tone.

 

God should not be taken out of politics, nor should God be required in politics.

But that's way off topic.

 

Yeah...I'm done with this debate. People want to be treated with respect but can't give me the same respect. Back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

 

KJ,

I wasn't being uppity, they were fair questions as part of the discussion and reasonable responses. In order to keep this discussion on a nice level, if you're going to take offense at such questions, the best response seems to be to discontinue further discussion with you here.